tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 1, 2014 5:00am-7:01am EDT
seniorsigh school admitted to driving after marijuana. 16% of drivers under age 21 years old tested positive for drugs, whereas only 7% of the same drivers tested positive for alcohol. as drunk driving for talladega atallities have tripled, that slaughter on the highways is impacting no other group as much , and thoseg people under age 20 five years old.
as much as 14% of fatal or tested positive for thc. don't have to have data to understand the full scope of the problem. data collection policies are generally testing only with fatalitiesh . traditional field testing is not identify andive to remove intoxicated drivers from the road. we have no standard test for marijuana for drivers. there is no standard test. federal standards
since notof t h c, the federal level any level of thc is illegal, a schedule one narcotic, and supposedly zero tolerance. currently there is no roadside breathalyzer for marijuana. technology is advancing. some have started to use a roadside oral test. this is one of those testing machines. europe.ed in --takes a swab of to swab the panelists. i thought i would not do that today. you can take a swab with this. it can tell you if anyone has used marijuana within 4 hours.
we have no standard or acceptable test. we have no way of telling if people are impaired. most data we are getting right now is from the fatalities. to either have to take them a hospital for a blood or urine the worst situation is where we test their blood. in the past 10 years marijuana was a factor in the 50 accidents. i show the civil aviation. i haven't even shown what happened in the commercial market. we have 23 states with medical marijuana use, and 2 states
who have not done most barriers. knocked down most barriers. the national transportation investigatedhas the different accidents and thc in at the use of number of these accidents, but all of their testing is done after the fact and usually, where a fatality is involved. the witnesses today will tell us what if anything the federal government is doing to combat drug impaired operation of any transportation. we have a host of notes the federal government takes responsibility over, the hay
cars, simple passenger commercial the goals, cargo, , and passenger and cargo of course aviation, civil and commercial. we will hear from christopher hart from the national transportation safety board, jeff michael from the national highway traffic safety kellystration, patrice from the department of transportation office of drug and alcohol policy compliance, flagel of thed substance abuse and mental health administration. i look forward to today's further and continuing discussions on the issue that has a great impact on all of us rankingd to the
member. >> thank you for holding the hearing. i am going to focus in on the automobile. this hearing addresses an aspect of marijuana policy where i believe there is general agreement over the desired outcome, reducing the incidence of vehicle accidents from driving while under the influence of any drugs. across the political spectrum there is widespread opposition while underdriving the influence. agree ite can all remains a national challenge. according to the national survey on drug and health, drug use and health, 10.3 million people have
admitted to driving while under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year. in 2010,eport that 2228 people were killed and now called related crashes, 31% of all traffic related deaths in the united states. the statistics are alarming in on acceptable. our nation must continue reducing the incidence of any drug impaired deaths. a key component will be improving our knowledge base through better data and research . with respect to the folks on today's hearing there has been limited research conducted by the federal government usagesing the marijuana and driving safely. thc hasfrom the -- dose-related impairment and fax
-- fx. e impairment is not acceptable produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. marijuana intoxication is short-lived. peak acute effects following cannabis inhalation are achieved within 10-30 minutes with the effects dissipating quickly after an hour. drivers retain influence over their performance and will compensate. as a consequence thc's adverse effects appear relatively small. meanwhile the national transportation safety board held a public forum to discuss the most effective data driven
science-based actions to reduce access resulting from substance impaired driving. a safetyit released report entitled reaching 0, actions to eliminate alcohol impaired driving in which he reiterated a recommendation to common a common standard of practice for toxicology testing. hasntific analysis standardize the use of a rep alcoholre to determine intoxication. he states beginning to implement marijuana decriminalization must act swiftly to address the fact there is no legal limit set for driving under the influence as there is with alcohol. field sobriety tests may be accurate and effective at did testing -- at detecting impairment. consumedparticipants
-- there is a strong correlation between cannabis those received and whether impairment was judged to be present. notoarse, anecdotes must substitute for rigorous scientific data. that is why we must support further research to inform the development of an effective public safety publishing -- policy. my friend and i had a discussion with one of our hearings, and we agree that has to be the basis for moving forward. in science. we need more of it. i concern over the ineffectiveness of our federal policy of marijuana prohibition is no more of an endorsement of userecreational purposes that opposing prohibition of alcohol is an endorsement for drunk driving.
the discouraging inappropriate use of drugs need not involve total prohibition and criminalization. governsral government best when it listens and learns from our states, which are the laboratories of democracy. those dates are undergoing a great experiment with respect to the subject. we need to learn from their experience and hopefully emulate them and regulations and policies in the future that address use, appropriate use, medicinal purposes, and the issue of criminalization. thank you mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman to recognize mr. fleming. >> thank you. i would like to thank the a and others for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. i would like to thank the chairman for having this hearing that are so vital and important.
it took centuries about all and our culture, and a new organization, mothers against drunk driving, to realize that we were losing americans wholesale by the tens of thousands as a result of driving under the influence about cuyahoga. it took us 400 years to figure out that tobacco was similarly killing tens of thousands of americans every year. the early 1960's, there were commercials in which doctors were recommending certain types of cigarettes saying it was good for your throat. i worry we are not in the same situation in this case when it comes to marijuana. drunk driving is a serious
problem according to statistics in the 2012 survey on drug use and health about 10.3 million people reported driving while under the influence of an illegal drug. marijuana's active ingredient is the most common drug found in drivers and crash victims alike. studies indicate between 4-14% of drivers involved in accidents had thc in their system. a driver'secreases response time, awareness, and perception of time and speed, which are necessary for safe driving. another concern is the combination of drugs and alcohol . whenever you hear this debate you often hear that marijuana is itocuous to begin with and is either or. either someone smokes marijuana or they drink out of. that is not the way it works.
individuals who drive under the influence of marijuana have little inhibition for drinking beer and alcohol and other substances as well. smoking a joint or whatever it takes to get high or feel-good. the rocky mount high intensity drug trafficking area, which works with the white house national drug control strategy is collecting data on the impact of colorado's legalization of marijuana. the report indicated in 2000 six colorado drivers testing positive for marijuana were involved in 28 percent of fatal drug-related vehicle crashes. 56% bymber increased to 2011. understand the in states that are decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana, certainly
ida, as marijuana is destigmatize, as a threat to use is reduced, use goes up and it finds its ways into homes, candies, cookies. one thing gets there, it finds its way into the brains of teens. we know from statistics it has a 9% addiction rate among adults. those who start as teens, the rate doubles to 1-6. it is important this year's report is also very alarming. using data from the national highway safety administration , thislent he analysis
year's report due out in october was show that between 20's -- 2007-2012 while the overall traffic for tallies decrease by 15%, over that same time, mayor wire related for tallies increased 100%. earlier this year the university of colorado released a study confirming that colorado drivers are testing positive for .arijuana there's no hard and fast way to determine whether an individual is driving under the influence and it is yet to be established a uniform amount of marijuana which cost to dudes -- which constitutes drunk driving. that is very important because in the case about the hall, when you arrest someone and they have not been in an accident, you just got them under the influence, with so many episodes that personnd, loses their license and they are
taken off the road. that is not happening with marijuana. we don't have a way to do that yet. all driving under the influence is unquestionably a problem, it is concerning that pot smoking youth may have trouble finding a job. true in thelly transportation arena. the u.s. department of transportation requires mandatory drug testing on pilots, air traffic controllers, railroad employees and commercial drivers. that can include buses, 18 wheelers. cdlhing that requires a license. these individuals are responsible for numerous lives and it's critical that they are and remain drug-free. moreuana will also become pervasive as states continue to embrace permissible laws on medical marijuana and the recreational use of marijuana and kids and youth will have easier access to a dangerous, a deep drug. and back to the medicinal there's no reason why
we can't use components of marijuana for disease treatment. right now we already have a schedule three that can be used under monitoring and observation physicians closely monitoring the dosage prescribed, and it can be done safely, just like hydrocodone. it has the same activity and benefit that the plant marijuana has. it is a synthetic thc. we have that already. thereis some claim that are oil extracts of cannabis that can be used to treat certain rare seizures in children. has little or no thc activity. there's no reason why that -- and it's under fast-track fda approval right now -- there's no reason why that can be taken out as well. but there is no reason to the
schedule or make legal marijuana which is now scheduled one for those purposes. all of those things can be done without reducing the schedule or to legalize marijuana plant itself. it's no surprise to you or opposed to that i am the legalization of marijuana. what is surprising is the new york times editorial board is fully supportive of the legalization of marijuana. i have two response pieces to the new york times that i would like to submit for the record. one from the white house office of national drug control policy, by another opinion piece peter wiener published in the wall street journal on tuesday. legalization is not the answer, nor is it a prudent decision for america. marijuana remains a dangerous, highly addictive drug, even science will tell you that. >> without objection, both of
those articles -- statements will be made part of the record. there being no further opening statement, members have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. now let me proceed and recognize our first panel. the first panel consists of christopher hart, the active chairman of the national transportation safety board. mr. jeff michael is the administrator for research and program development of the national highway traffic safety administration. ms. patrice kelly is acting director for the office of drug and alcohol policy and compliance at the department of transportation, and mr. ron fleagle is the director for the division of workplace programs at the center for substance at theevenge and
substance abuse and mental health administration. i welcome all of our panelists. this is an investigative and oversight subcommittee of congress. of ourwear and all witnesses. if you will stand please, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? all of the witnesses -- the record will reflect, answered in the affirmative. welcome again. ms. information on a statistic and i didn't realize it until after i said it. i want to clarify that for the record. i said nearly a quarter of a million people had been killed in the last dozen years on our highways. it's nearly a half-million people. think about that.
people died -- that's nearly a quarter of a million, with either alcohol or some substance in their system. i will get the exact numbers and will put them in the record, but i didn't give the rest of the story, as paul harvey would say. with that correction for the record, let me first welcome and recognize mr. hart. morning chairman mica, ranking member calmly, and members of the subcommittee. focus onmmittee federal marijuana policies affecting transportation is very timely. we have been working extensively for many years to address alcohol abuse by drivers which you have heard about in the opening statements. it still kills almost 10,000 people every year on our highways.
now we are becoming more concerned that our investigations also illustrate the problems of marijuana use. there was a recreational boating accident in florida killed five, a day care van driver in memphis tennessee who was high and crashed, causing five deaths, and a railroad accident in chase maryland that killed 16 that has already been referred to. but we don't have a good idea of the number of drug-related transportation totality's. as we ever, many states have authorized medical marijuana programs and two states have criminalized recreational use of the drug. in addition, recent news reports pressure to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level as well. perhaps most disturbing is evidence that marijuana use among teenage drivers is increasing and the perceived risk of their want use is decreasing.
year-long completed a review of substance impaired driving which included drug use, and we concluded that there is not enough data on drunk driving. consequently we asked knits at and wewe asked ntsa understand are working on our recommendation. lack of data about drug an issue ins also other transportation modes. investigators sometimes the evidence of drug use by pilots who are involved in accidents. so we decided it was time to look at this issue in greater detail. in september we will meet to discuss drug use and general aviation by examining toxicology on aviationsults pilots. we are missing important data on the role of illegal drugs and the public is written much unaware of important information about how illegal drugs may also
affect her performance. we will examine drug use in general aviation as compared to trends in the u.s. population in general. thermation we obtained in september reading will help evaluate if there is a need for additional recommendations or other advocacy efforts on our part. fortunately, shifting state laws have not resulted in changes for commercial operators. the department of transportation has stated it continues to have a zero tolerance policy for drug andby commercial operators the ntsb fully supports that policy. what is clear is that operator impairment laces the public in jeopardy. impaired drivers share the roadways with other drivers. impaired pilot sure the airspace with other pilots. , many operators have passengers that may be placed at risk. too many people died on a roadways from alcohol
impaired driving before strong action was taken to combat it. that strong action has reduced the tallies tremendously but there are still too many alcohol-related deaths, and everyone of them is entirely preventable. hopefully we will not wait for more people to die before we take strong and decisive action. hearings like this one today will help inform policymakers on the issues so that effective laws can be crafted, strong enforcement can be implemented and robust efforts can be accomplished in all modes of transportation. we look forward to working with you to draw more attention to this issue. inviting me you for to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> we withhold questions until we have heard from everyone. now let me recognize jeff michael. >> i appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today.
takes tremendous pride in partnering with states and by working to make vehicles safer. since 1970, highway fatalities declined by 36%. traffic deaths have fallen by 22% in the past decade. with more than 30,000 fatalities on america's roadways each year, we must continue looking at new and innovative ways to save lives. working with our state partners and other safety organizations we have made substantial progress is critical safety behaviors including drunk driving and seatbelt use and have applied the same successful approaches to emerging concerns such as distracted driving. marijuana under state law imposes new concerns and we are actively working from our foundation of experience to understand these risks and develop appropriate countermeasures. available evidence indicates that alcohol is the most common inrce of reiber impairment. 2012, more than 30% of all traffic deaths and balls a
driver with a blood alcohol level at or above the legal limit. with more than four years of research, several decades of data collection and a well-established criminal justice process, if traffic safety professionals have a good understanding of the scale and nature of the drunk driving problem. much more research is needed to gain a good understanding of the effects of drugs other than alcohol on safe driving. in 2007 we obtained the first nationally represented information on the prevalence of drug use by drivers by including drug testing in our national roadside survey. although the survey had been used to track driver alcohol use for several decades, this was the first time that information on drug use was collected. ons survey, based information from voluntary and anonymous participants, found that about 12% of we can drivers were alcohol positive and about 9% were marijuana positive. we repeated the national roadside survey in 2013 and we are in the process of analyzing
those data. to understand how state-level legalization might affect prevalence of marijuana by drivers, we partnered with the state of washington at their invitation this spring to conduct a similar roadside survey. this is a two-phase study that will assess the change in marijuana use by drivers before and following the date at which the state allowed retail sale of the drug. in addition to prevalence research, we also need information on the degree of risk associated with drug use. we are in the process of completing a new study which compares the crash risk of drivers using drugs to those with no drugs in their system. this is the first such investigation of drug crash risk in the united states and more research of various types will be needed to get a full understanding of the role of drugs in crashes. as we prepare to release the results of this new study, we plan to reach out to stakeholders including committee staff to inform them of the findings. strong laws and law enforcement are cornerstones of our effort
to address alcohol impaired driving and were looking to the same solutions for drunk driving. we were closely to develop a network of more than 7000 drug recognition expert across the nation. these trained officers can significantly facilitate successful prosecution of drug driving cases. we're also looking closely at procedural barriers to effective drug driving law enforcement and recognize the challenges presented by drug testing methods. of alcoholrosecution impaired driving cases reflects evidential testing for alcohol can typically be done at the jurisdiction by local officials with the modern mountain training. testing for drug presence among suspected impaired drivers is often far less convenient. sample bethat a blood drawn, center remote lab for analysis by highly trained arson l. delay of such testing can be a disincentive for criminal justice officials
to pursue a drug driving charge. in conclusion, we are committed to reducing both alcohol and drug impaired driving. we support the development of effective education enforcement programs with guidance for state officials based on sound research. much progress has been made. however, impaired driving still claims more than 10,000 lives per year. thank you again for inviting me to testify before your committee and i'll be happy take any questions you have. >> will now hear from mr. treece kelly. she is acting director of the office of drug and alcohol policy at the department of compliance at the department of transportation. welcome, and you are recognize. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the potential impacts on commercial transportation of recent state and local legislation that allow recreational and medical marijuana use.
the transportation industry drug and alcohol testing program for commercial operations is a critical element of the department of transportation safety mission. drivers,ilots, truck subway operators, mariners, bob -- pipeline operators, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, motorcoach drivers and school bus drivers, among others, have a tremendous responsibility to the public, and we cannot let their performance the compromised by drugs or alcohol. today i will provide you with a brief history of our program, the scope of its application and finally annexed ruination of our policy regarding the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes by individuals who work in federally regulated transportation industries. the dot drug in called testing program was first established in 1988 following the department of health and human services development of drug testing and for federalesting
employees. the dot program was initiated in response to transportation industry fatal accidents that occur due to illegal drug use. in 1991, congress enacted the omnibus transportation employee theing act which required dot to expand the application of its program to include mass transit and modifies regulations to address the statutory requirements. the dot program has always required transportation industry employers to have drug and now called testing programs that require employees to be removed from performing safety sensitive duties immediately if they have violated drug and now called testing rules. route the history program, we its relied on hhs for technical and scientific expertise for determining the
types of drugs for which we may certifiedntegrity of laboratories and testing the specimens and reporting results. we are limited to testing for the controlled substances and colluding in the hhs mandatory guidelines. currently those substances include schedule one, illegal drugs him and scheduled to, legally prescribed drugs. the drugs and classes of drugs for which we test or cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and marijuana. forn employee test positive any of those substances, the employer must take immediate action to remove the employee safety sensitive duties until that employees successfully completes treatment and additional testing. currently there are proximally 5 billion dot regulated safety sensitive employees that are sensitive to our drug testing program. unchanged has remain since our program began in 1988. there is no legitimate
expectation, medical or otherwise, for the presence of a schedule one controlled substance such as marijuana in an employee's system. in december 2009, following the department of justice's issuance of guidance for federal prosecutors in states that enacted laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana, we issued a reminder to our regulated entities that under the dot testing program, medical marijuana use authorized under state or local law is not a ford medical explanation transportation employee's positive drug test results. although there has been recent movement by some states to allow recreational use of marijuana by their citizens, the dot program does not, and will not, authorized the use of schedule one controlled substances, including marijuana, for any reason by any individual conducting safety sensitive duties in the transportation industry. in december 2012, we issued a notice explaining that stated
local government initiatives allowing the use of recreational marijuana will have no bearing on the department of transportation's drug testing program, nor any individual subject to testing. it remains unacceptable for any safety sensitive employees subject to the dot drug testing regulations to use marijuana and continue to perform safety sensitive duties in the federally regulated transportation industries. this concludes my testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. flegel's director for the center of substance abuse prevention. welcome, and you are recognize. >> thank you. i am the director of the division of workplace programs at the center for substance abuse prevention.
i am pleased to speak with you this morning about our role as it pertains to the issue of drug testing for marijuana. particularly as it relates to drug driving. our mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on the community. we strive to create awareness that prevention works and people can recover from mental and substance abuse disorders. driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. we focus on enhancing legal reforms to get drunk drivers off increasing law enforcement's ability to identify drug robbers. these efforts remain the administration's focus for the upcoming year.
we have several rows as it pertains to the issue of drug driving. we conduct for sale and -- surveillance, we provide funding for drug driving prevention efforts, offer technical existence -- technical assistance in the general public and evaluate grantees that have focused efforts on the problem. we administer the federal drug for -- drug free workplace program which includes a random asting of dublin health and look safety divisions within the executive branch agencies. currently nine states are focused on drug driving prevention efforts using our grant funds. we also provide science -- training and addresses drunk driving in states and communities choose to make this a focus of their efforts or if the data suggest that drug driving is an issue in their state or community. division of workplace program has unique and ashley
reported regulatory or role and responsibility for federal and nonfederal workplaces with respect to the drug-free workplace policies and programs. dwp has oversight responsibility of hhs certified laboratories operating under the mandatory guidelines for federal workplace testing program requirements. the hhs certified laboratory conducts drug testing for federal agencies under executive 12564 in the federal drug-free workplace program. issued by president reagan in 1986. the supplemental appropriations as well as specific federally regulated industries. the federal drug-free workplace program was established as a deterrent program incorporating detection as well as referrals for treatment is needed for federal employees in safety sensitive positions while protecting national security and public safety.
to ensure the reliability and accuracy of drug test and to specify the drugs for which federal employees may be tested. hence the mandatory guidelines established the scientific and technical guidelines for federal and testing programs establish standards for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing for federal agencies and the regulated industries. currently 100 57 federal agencies are affected by the guidelines based on public law and executive order. executive order covers approximately 2.2 million executive branch employees and job applicants. the department of transportation and nuclear regulatory commission utilize the regulatoryin the testing program requiring testing of over 5 million safety anditive employees transportation related industries nationally and an
additional 2 million employees in the nuclear industry. in the private nonregulated sectors whenever proximally had 20-50,000,000 americans tested as applicants or employees using some aspect of our guidelines. urine is the only specimen of federal agency may collect under guidelines for drug testing programs. the federal agency must ensure -- authorized to test for opiates and amphetamines. the guidelines are specific to testing federal employees for the purpose of work lace vetting and do not directly govern issues related to drug driving. the revised guidelines may impact testing for drug driving through the provisions of scientific standards for oral fluid testing. the proposed revisions are still being finalized and will be posted in the federal register for public comment was completed. as i stated at the opening of my
testimony, the issue is a priority for the administration. we continue to collaborate with state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to raise awareness of the dangers of drug driving and reduce drug driving in america. advance work on this important issue and look forward to continuing to work with congress on these efforts. thank you for this opportunity and i welcome any questions you >>your colleagues may have. i thank each of our witnesses and we will start around of questions. just to give folks the most accurate information on the number of highway for tallies, 2001-2012, and this doesn't include 2013, but during that ,oesn't years that i spoke of
.68,000 highway fatalities that's nearly a half-million people and i'm sure if we would talk3, we that. that's just phenomenal devastation. tallies, not injuries, property damage and everything else. everyone in this room can probably name someone who has died or a family member in an automobile fatality. laws, with the changing there are significant consequences. mr. hart, again, where do you reachinging as far as ine positive steps
containing the issue, and also adjusting our federal laws and regulations, adopting standards for tests, the whole spectrum of addressing these changing laws. could -- maybe you comment generally. >> thank you for the question. there is indication of impairment as we have in every mode, and we are very concerned about the need for strong and decisive action. typically that will mean strong legislation, strong enforcement and good education and in addition to looking at technologies to help us with detection. >> some of that has to be based on data. is reallyat we have not that up-to-date. mr. michael testify that started collecting some data as recently as 2007 and then you said 2013
data we had collected, which , that has notdo been calculated, and when do you expect us to have that data? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. we have collected information 2007 about the presence of drugs and specifically marijuana among drivers on the roadway. we repeated that same data collection during 2013. we are now analyzing that and it will be compared. >> my question was when will we see that completed? >> we expect to have that information by the end of the year. >> if you could check even closer and advise the committee and staff, maybe we could ask that question. i'd like to find out when we will have that data. the next thing that comes to mind is most of the 23 states, my state may follow. florida has an initiative
referendum coming in. may changentities their laws. do you plan, or will there be a plan to check some of these states? florida will change the law possibly and others have already changed the law. some have changed the law for some time. i'm getting that reports on california, a news reporter told me he went out and said it is a , much morerent world dramatic than you would expect, it's not just medical marijuana use. just thelling me societal and behavior change. so it's had an impact. i think we need to look at doing testing. those are the medical marijuana states.
each of the languages may be a little different, allowing more latitude. then you have colorado, which we datehad some experience to , but i think we ought to go in and look at colorado. washington is more recent. ,here you have a change in law and its medical marijuana and changes brought about by that morethen you have a much as youse or legalization have in colorado. do you have plans to go in and >> yes testing then? sir, we are working with the state of washington currently and using the same roadside data collection process we have used across the country and looking pacific lit washington before legalizing and
sale of marijuana to assess what affect that may have with use on the roadway. >> again, i think we need accurate data and we need to adopt our federal rags. to get to ms. kelly now, we have a whole host of areas in which we do some testing, but most of the testing is periodic for marijuana use, is it not customer >> our program covers preemployment testing to start with, before someone -- and then random. and there is reasonable cause testing and if someone would wreck the other thing, again, and the of the states, marijuana medical use, there is different language that is allowed more latitude in stem -- in some states as people have taken advantage of that. are you going in and doing more
testing in colorado or washington? for example, pilots would be , commercial drivers would be more exposed. in states where you have the with liberalization of the law, are we taking some steps to try to ensure the safety of the public? could berline pilots taking couple hundred people in -- wer, passenger rail line safetynto pop or maritime or others, but they all pose different risk. tell us where you're going with these modes that put public safety at risk. feel that our program is effective and the way our program is structured --
>> could i ask you to put the microphone closer? thank you. >> under the regulations, our program is administered to the individual employer. you are mostly talking in terms of how things have been in the past, but not how things are most recently and where we are going with this. >> we don't conduct the testing ourselves. we require the employer to conduct it. >> have you changed any of those requirements? >> no, sir, we have not. that you have to go to risk base when you are doing most of these approaches to try to ensure safety. preemployment is one. we have done that in the past and we are doing that. now we have a new situation that
much more of this available narcotic on the market. useave seen an increase in just by the statistics that were presented by some of the panelists today. are you adapting the department of transportation regulations or advisories to where we see the most risk? federal railroad administration, national highway safety. me if there have been any changes and directives in the last 24 months. >> there've not been any changes to our random testing rates but if a pilot flies in and out of denver it doesn't mean necessarily that he or she lives anywhere near denver.
many of our employees throughout the different modes of transportation are not purely in one state. they operate across states. >> again, i think we need to be a little bit preemptive and protecting people. i had dinner the other night with a friend from florida and ask him what he was going to do for a vacation. he said we are putting it off a little and were going to go skiing. planned to go to colorado, but the last thing i want to do is take my three kids out there and have somebody to him.osing a risk he is going to utah. that is one change in behavior. we are responsible for the safety of the public. you are responsible for
administering rules and regulations that impact pilots to carry passengers. i shared that one crash with 25 people killed. that is before some of these changes in laws granted. we have seen the incidence of use, whether john people or older. you have told me their art any aanges, and we will get message to mr. fox and others that we do need to look at adapting this. we also need to get the data. maybe there isn't the problem that is perceived and the data would support that. maybe it is worse than what we actined, but we need to risk on facts and based on , and preempt is much as you can bad effects on the general public and their safety. we collect data from the
laboratory. the laboratory confirmed positive and we have been doing s.at every six-month what we have seen since 2008 is a steady rate of marijuana positive, ranging between 21,000-22,000 out of roughly 2.5-3 million employees tested each six-month. so we have seen those numbers remain the same across the itson as it comes in aggregate. >> i think it is important that we look from a safety standpoint , i'm not selling any products but this is the only one i found available, this particular european model for testing. again, the swabs can be used on-site. i don't know if we are looking at using this kind of test for , ifk drivers, train drivers
we are doing spot checking. we are not using anything like this now, are we? >> we are required to follow the signs as it is developed the department of health and human services and lamented are the mandatory guidelines. yet?t this is not accepted >> currently we are looking at having those standards come out. this would be through the mandatory guidelines. insteadey are involved -- setting standards, is that correct? >> once the standards are out to -- public, >> can you give us a chronological estimate as to completere going to what you are saying here before the committee?
dealing with some of the pull down thest national standards and testing bill a couple of weeks ago, within the last two weeks, just jerked usey had around for 10 years on a and iris standard for id. they promised and promised but did not perform. i don't want to be coming back to hearing saying where are they with development. we need some federal and or and we need to do tests that have acceptable standards to evaluate people who are on the job and transportation and make sure the public is safe. do you see my point? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i know the chairman did not mean to suggest in any way that colorado is not a safe ways to go skiing. his friends at dinner may have a private view. i'm sure there are wonderful reasons to go to colorado and someone anywhere else wishes to ski. i know my colleagues that are not here would want me to say that. >> maybe you could stay home in florida or go to virginia. there is legislation with respect to pilot license medical certification here in congress that would no longer require -- for a pilot whose -- who carries
up to five passengers. are you aware of that legislation? >> yes, i am aware of it. >> what do you think of it? our policy on what we see in accident. so far, we haven't seen enough accidents to warrant an agency position on it yet but we are very concerned about not only not having a medical, you're less likely to pay attention to the list of prohibited legal .rugs we are concerned that list will not be paid attention to by people who do not have medical crew exit scribe -- strikes me as odd -- >> it just strikes me as odd that we are having a hearing on the utilization and potential harmful effects of any kind of drug or controlled in the operation of
any kind of vehicle, and meanwhile, there's apparently would exempt at subclass of people who fly airplanes. i cannot believe for a minute that if we really are concerned about the use of marijuana or any other drug, that we would ever countenance legislation like this. i cannot believe they could come to any good. so i encourage you and your colleagues to re-examine that legislation and hopefully take a position on it, because it seems to contradict everything we are talking about this morning at this hearing. pay close certainly attention to that in our future accident investigations. was just thinking about talking about driving while impaired and things would discourage. we are worried about thc, but texting while driving. bad idea?
>> of course, sir. very bad idea. >> kills people. >> of course. >> do we have data on it? we do. >> how many people were killed on the roads last year texting while driving? >> distraction in general is about 3000 people. texting alone is several hundred. >> alcohol and driving? 2012, 10,300 22 people died in crashes in which the driver had a blood-alcohol limit above the legal limit. quick sleep deprivation? >> that is harder to measure, of course. we believe it is a significant problem. >> would it be fair to say that studies on sleep deprivation and driving suggest that sleep deprivation mimics an almost exact detail thinking and driving? in terms of impairment? >> at least in some details.
driving, driving an unsafe speed? >> as many as a third of crashes are attributed at least in part to excessive speed. >> and hammy desk can we attribute to thc in the bloodstream -- how many deaths can we attribute to thc in the bloodstream? >> we don't know. we don't have the precise estimate. >> we do have precise estimates on distracted driving. 3331. we have precise estimates of drinking and driving. i just want to put it in context. the fact of the matter is we don't have a lot of data. let me ask, do we have a borrow your i could
gizmo here for a minute. out that in points parts of europe, they take a swab sample and measure thc. that have any such device we use in law enforcement in the united states? ofyes, there is some use vice is very similar to that by law enforcement. currently doing a pilot test in california to test the feasibility of more widespread use of devices very similar to that. >> we have an alcohol standard that blood-alcohol above a certain standard, you are in legal jeopardy. would you remind us what that standard is? >> .08. correction that is a national standard, and excepted by virtually all states? >> that's right. >> do we have a comparable standard for thc?
>> no, we don't, sir. the available evidence does not support the development of an impairment threshold for thc, which would be a knowledge is to that for alcohol. >> why is that, dr. michael? indicatesle evidence that the response of individuals to increasing amounts of thc is much more variable than it is for alcohol. so with alcohol we have a considerable body of evidence that can place risk odds at increasing levels of blood-alcohol content. for example, .08 blood alcohol is associated with about four times a crash risk of a sober person. 15.average arrest is point that is associated with about 15 times the crash risk. broad confirmation
that higher levels of thc are generally associated with higher a moreof impairment, precise association of various thc levels and degrees of impairment are not yet available. .> that's really interesting we don't have a uniform standard, the variability is much greater than that with other controlled substances such as alcohol. when actually cannot pinpoint levels of impairment with any accuracy. and were notiable sure enough to adopt a uniform standard as to the maximum level where we know there are serious impairment. and that is a substance one
controlled substance. underscores why we need a lot or science here, and i guess what really strikes me is that meanwhile, as i said in 22 states statement, plus the district of columbia have decided to legalize marijuana in some fashion. most of them for medical purposes, but some of them even for recreational purposes. at least at a national level, were not comfortable with the findings in terms of the impact of thc with operating a vehicle. fair statement? yes, and we are pursuing that science. >> i understand. so we are pursuing. is there a goal or an in date
where we want to achieve, so by a certain date we hope to have some preliminary -- we hope to have the basis upon which to examine or adopt some preliminary standards comparable to other substances. >> we have sponsored some work with standards development with regard to measurement techniques and specific drugs to be along drivers involved in traffic crashes and also minimum cutoff levels that represent the analytical capabilities of the existing technology. those recommendations have been established. our thresholds of impairment that are a knowledge is -- that are analogous. one step that is ongoing with
that will take us in that direction. it is the crash risk study i mentioned in my opening statement. this is the same sort of study aat was done for alcohol number of years ago which established those risk levels that i told you about. this involves a very careful look at two groups of subjects. one group had been involved in a crash and the other group was not. and looking for relative concentration levels of factors that might've caused the crash such as thc use. with those kinds of studies, and can develop the risk odds that could potentially be used to .evelop a threshold >> i wish you luck in your research. i just think it is amazing with hyperventilated rhetoric about marijuana use and thc that 50 years -- i guess it's 50 years we have declared
.t a class one substance we still don't have enough data to know just how dangerous it is in operating a vehicle. and that really raises questions the classification itself and whether that makes , or raises serious questions about how our government is operating in terms of data does not have and the science it does not know, and yet the assertions that we make. for is not a good recipe rational public policy. it's one of the reasons i 422 states that are headed in a different direction without the science. there are lots of complications. at the previous hearing, dr. fleming and i talked about this
along with the chairman. whereve doctors in states legalization for medicinal purposes has been granted who, nonetheless, really don't have protocols, really don't have the science to decide on levels of efficacy, mixing it with other ofgs, potential dangers overdose or whatever. point think we are at a where we've got to get a lot more serious about the science in order to fashion rational withc policies, including respect to transportation safety. i thank you all for your testimony and i thank you, dr. fleming. mr. michael, to follow up on the questions from my good , we don'tm virginia
have adequate science on the effects of marijuana, thc specifically, on the body. and speaking as a physician and someone who has worked in the area of addiction, my understanding of this is that it's a much more complex interaction and physiology between the drug and the body, metabolites remain in the body for up to 30 days after use. the fat,t is stored in so fat body content can affect it. would that be a correct assumption on my part that is really what makes this more difficult issue in terms of measurement than now, all. >> you're completely right on that. the studies of the effects on thc on driving is much more challenging in just about every aspect and that for alcohol.
>> are really it is multidimensional as opposed to alcohol, which you can draw a straight line on the graph, plus or minus a small tolerance level. .08 is when people become far more impaired, hitting a critical threshold. we just don't know that, even if it exists, in thc. it may be a much smoother graph. haveven the fact that we certainly a lack of knowledge of the effects of thc on the body and on the brain and behavior, although we know we have a lot of examples of problems from it, would it lead you to be more restrictive until we get that information, or less restrictive in the application and allowance of the use of that drug going forward? >> with regard to use on the roadway, which of course is my it is theern,
decision of the states how they want to deal with these impairment issues. with tried to provide them guidance, with scientific evidence they can use to support effective policies. we have been able to do that with alcohol and states have been able to respond very positively to alcohol impairment and drive those numbers down. over12, there were just 10,000 killed in such crashes. 20 years previously, that number was well over 20,000. >> going beyond whether were talking comparing thc with alcohol or any other drug, and i'm asking your personal opinion , and i'm going to ask the opinion of the rest of the panel members here as well. if you have a drug that we really cannot define the effects adequately, but we know that it can have serious, in fact proved that it can actually kill people, does it make sense to be
more aggressive in terms of relaxing the standards, or does it make sense to be more conservative and wait for that science to develop? >> i think it makes sense to be policyutious with the when the complete evidence is not yet available. >> mr. hart, what is your opinion, sir? accident investigators, we follow where the accidents take us and that's the reason we did something no sierra controversial, which was to recommend that the lead alcohol content be reduced. there is no bright line says is .uch is too much the policy question of where it should be for legal enforcement, we would have it i approach with ,espect to any other substance it's kind of wait and see based on our accident experience every
>> is certainly bus driving is the same as impaired driving. driving is the same as impaired driving. whenever there's a question of being more conservative and protective, when in doubt, always be a little safer and a little more restrictive. would that be a safe estimate, from your opinion? we are the safety people so we would always go in that direction. >> how about you, ms. kelly? wewe rely on the science and make the policy based on the science. >> but when there is a lack of science, do you lean towards being more conservative and until that science develops, or just full steam ahead, let's go ahead and give it a chance? >> we remain with the science on it. when our senses tell us that things have changed, then we follow what they say. until then, it remains agile
one, we treat it as schedule one, with no excuses. >> are you would agree that , notinly being cautious being aggressive to change something to a more relaxed standard without the science to back that safety up, you are reluctant to move forward. changesnnot make without the science. >> as with my colleague here, under executive order, thc is mentioned directly, and we will continue to test for schedule one and scheduled to drugs. somewhat of we have an agreement here. we can all agree to the fact that until we have the science, we should be careful and cautious. one of the things about thc is because it has been illegal, we haven't really been doing the studies and research.
some of the only data has become out recently as it has been legalized. evening casual users, there are profound changes in the brain. we have done a number of mri scans. studies showed a progressive decline in iq. even in early studies, we are starting to see problems and that is notwithstanding the of to 14% of fatal accidents involving thc. we hear about medicinal marijuana and it's interesting that in the state of california and in the city of denver, we ine more pot dispensaries then we do starbucks. i don't know what your opinion is, but i don't think people are that unhealthy in denver in
california. is there anyone on the panel that would disagree with that? again, i question. it interacts with what you do. do you treat someone who is on medicinal marijuana versus recreational marijuana any differently than when it comes to traffic accidents, when it comes to being able to fly an airplane, to engineer a train. anyou treat those people differently? would anyone like to comment on that? yes, go ahead. not in the department of transportation. all safety sensitive employees are subject to the same testing and we did issue the two state ends. one in 2009 in response to the inicinal marijuana law and
2012 on recreational. everyone is to be treated the same. there is no legitimate medical explanation for a schedule one drug, marijuana. for all intents and purposes, if someone is sick and need marijuana, they are disabled for the purpose of having a job and transportation? >> if that person tests positive, they will be required to be removed from safety sensitive positions. i did not catch all of the exchange here, but i believe mr. connolly brought up mr. ok' as all he such would require was just a regular driver's to be able to qualify toterms of safety standards fly an airplane. did i catch that right? were you talking about a
different subject? >> is legislation to allow private violets to not have to have the medical examination that they are now required to have. theory, with that standard and even under the current standard, a private pilot could be flying an airplane under the influence of marijuana. that is possible and we have investigated accidents where that has occurred and we will have the meeting to get more specific about it. to watch documentaries on tv and i was watching one the other night that discussed airplanes and midair collisions. what they focused on was private aircraft that had drifted in the wrong airplane and interacted .ith a certain aircraft i was living in the area at the time, san diego i believe 1978 where you had a private airplane
that drifted in the wrong airspace and they collided with a commercial aircraft and hundreds died as a result. ist that would suggest to me no matter the highest dandridge do could ever come up with for a commercial pilot, when you have private pilots out there who could be impaired and not receive the same high standard, then they are in effect just as dangerous to the commercial passengers as the commercial pilot himself. if his standards were lowered as well. would you agree or disagree with that? a private pilots flying with lower standards in effect has the same potential danger impact as if the pilot was a commercial and flak -- airplane was impaired instead. >> when we do accident investigation, the issue of impairments may be different.
whether they had a medical certificate or not, we put that in the probable cause. the safety of aviation in general is no better than the lower standard for any pilot who's in the air. as we have pilots who, in this case, hopefully it will never make it into law but pilots flying with no more standard than having a drivers license and hopefully be certified to fly of course but no medical standard beyond that. then we have the legalization in the increased medicinalization and decriminalization and i see the risk to air travel growing in the future. i would suggest, mr. chairman, that we look at this from both sides. one is the fact that there is many reasons that we should not go forward with legalization,
or evenlization, decriminalization but have the highest standards for all who fly in the air realizing that there are new threats when it comes to thc. guidance are you getting from the white house? the president has been giving ambiguous cues on this. in 2011 he made clear statements that marijuana should not be legalized. it's a potential danger and young people should certainly stay away. other4, he made statements suggesting it may be no worse than tobacco or alcohol. i would love to hear from you as government agencies what sort of guidance, if any, you are getting from the white house. we work closely with the white house office of national drug control policy.
nationalpart of the drug strategy. the office has provided support for our roadside survey and for other research that we've done. i would say that we are getting very good import -- input and support. >> anyone else? say the same. we work with the national drug control policy and setting standards. the set policy and we do regulatory side. we have worked well with them. >> have you been moved in any direction toward relaxed standards are legalization? >> we are under executive order test for under so to schedule one and scheduled two drugs and that will remain. you, mr. chairman.
a very interesting discussion. thank you to the panel. >> didn't the president, after he made his statement saying it was no worse than alcohol or tobacco, we did have test actation -- we did have testimony that he disagreed with the white house. you would agree with ellen cp more than the president -- you would agree with oncp? >> we investigate and -- [laughter] >> you did not commit yourself on that. ondcp. workingw ith said?ncur with what they >> we are in agreement and we are in agreement with the president as well. >> oh, no, no.
[laughter] nowuld make a funny comment but i won't. we may need to get the testing equipment out here. >> we work closely with them on everything and setting the standard. >> we hauled in the deputy director and he disagreed with wholeesident and we had a host of people, dea, other agencies who also disagreed with the resident. i tried to embarrass you but it didn't work. dr. michael, you said it is the decision of the state, really. the federal government does cents in standard and we have standard. we can penalize you and that is an incentive. >> the congress established a statute. of thest read one
offices that just recommended going to 0.5. is that right? >> i believe that was a recommendation. >> i knew one of you did but there's a recommendation. and we do assess penalties to where that don't comply there is some reduction in their eligibility for programs or funds. that was a recommendation? >> that was our recommendation, yes. don't have federal standards. we have states adopting standards. colorado it is five nanograms per milliliter, i guess. is there any consideration of any standard under way other what the national standards
board is considering? are you guys looking at anything? yes, we are. we recognize that we need more testing of drivers at the state level. >> and you need some means of testing. you said you are using some similar devices in testing. been is nothing that has as acceptable or certified. i'm sure you have not certified anything yet. any piece of equipment that can test, correct? have inechnology you your hand is developing rapidly and we think this will improve testing. >> california you're doing some testing? >> pilot testing in four
locations in california as we speak to test the feasibility of those with the idea that if they are working well encouraging the use by state. more testing, we believe -- >> is this internal or are you working with a national standards testing agency? are working with state officials on this. >> not with the winds setting the standard or at least looking at sending some standards which would be the national standards testing -- what are the initials? >> no, we are not working -- you think it would behoove to contact them. we will ask the committee to put you in touch with them. i've had my go around with them and they do take a while to develop a standard. it's a important and you need to be accurate in what you adopt as
it does become a standard. i would suggest -- i do not do these hearings just to hear ourselves talk. we're trying to also stay ahead of the curve. we have dramatically changing laws that changes social behavior. marijuana when he went to college or something and this is much more powerful. we have had testimony that confirms this and we've got people more at risk. ,e have laws rapidly changing societal view and then we talked about teens are most susceptible and vulnerable in the most my transportation, many of them by alcohol, some by substance abuse and we see increasing use of that among the
most vulnerable now viewing this as less of a risk. we do have some serious issues here. no standards, no testing capability. we have done some testing in the 2007 and 2013. i want to see some data and i want to see others looking at beefing up the testing and the regulations where we now have more exposure to a schedule one narcotic being more available to the public and the implications on public safety and transportation. that is something hopefully positive that can come from this. it is my understanding marijuana stays in the system longer than
alcohol. we have a whole host of things that need to be looked down. again, implications from a different type of substance that it's posing risks. i've been on transportation for with somes institutional knowledge. one thing we focused on with transportation when you see people getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands per year, we did some simple things. rails and thed median. there were crossovers and we put in the rumble strips so people who fall asleep are awakened or shaken alert. the safety airbags and the changes. if we do not do something when we see the danger of a new
narcotic, again the potential of more people impaired, driving , ale impaired weather, again ,ehicle manning a train piloting. i showed just a few samples of the civil claims that went down. we have pages and pages and i showed four. i showed one picture of a teenage fatality we know from the blood test that people says no one gets killed from smoking marijuana. differ that. we have serious responsibility and i intend to pursue the matter beyond even this hearing so i thank each of you for coming out, for being part of today's hearing. hopefully we can all do a better job and there being no further
business, with the concurrence of the minority, we will leave the record open for 10 additional days. we may have additional questions and i've asked for additional information to be submitted for the record. without objection, so ordered. no further business before the government operations subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> american artifacts on american history tv. this week the visit to george washington university reveals classified documents.
50 years ago this week congress passed the gulf of tonkin resolution, giving president johnson broad powers to wage war in southeast asia. sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 eastern. watch more american history tv next week. now congress is in recess, american history tv will be in events fromou drink watergate on the 40th anniversary. on the next washington journal, our first guest is author and columnist and schapiro who will discuss the house authorization for a lawsuit against president obama. both parties using it as a talking point. we will be joined by richard gage, founder of the growth architects and engineers. day at 7:00an every
eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and on twitter. >> silvia dukes morris is the guest on q&a. >> she was so beautiful and so she wasd also so witty always irresistible to me. -- i went to her 18th birthday party. richard conway and was at the party and they sat to dinner together and she began to stroke his beard. afterwards he said have since, i have never met an 18-year-old to get intowanted bed with. she had this quality her entire life. sylvia dukes morris and sharing about the personal relationship during her final years. sunday night at 8:00 eastern.
>> yesterday on what was scheduled to be their last legislative day before august recess, house leaders pulled the emergency border security spending bill on the floor. after a gop conference meeting, the rules committee approved the rule,led same day allowing consideration of a border funding bill before september 5. the meeting was 20 minutes.
we are here tonight to make sure a piece of legislation will be available to us, i just did not know when, but there is a strong sense. i think it is good to measure twice and saw once. if you get a chance to do that, then you do the right thing. we have believed an hour conference that talking to each other goes a long way. we believe if we err out not only the a things we agree with but the differences that we get a better sense about not only what the problem is but what the solution might be also. we're going through a process right now. i have asked for the committee to come up and meet tonight. we have a bunch of our members.
you have to. it may take a few more but we will take what you got. we are here at the rules to pass what we believe was consideration of a rural that would allow us to be prepared as quickly as we do get an answer. so that is why we are here. we are going to get the work done. the gentlewoman is recognized. i appreciate you are between a rock and a hard place. and as i look at this, i got to say i'm somewhat surprised to see that this martial law goes to september 5. this means that without anybody seeing anything you could call
something any time between now and vote on it. you would not do that, would you? >> i want to provide us with a maximum amount of flexibility. if it is not tonight or tomorrow, or whatever it is, saturday, that we are prepared so we do not have to call you back and we can get this done. the we are trying to just give us the flexibility. there is nothing cute or clever about this flexibility. >> last night we could have done it or today, when we did the other martial law -- >> i'm sorry. >> that is ok. i am saying if we had done the martial law to cover it tomorrow, which is not unheard of, a couple of days, but five weeks is a bit -- and we realize -- we understand. it is pretty astonishing and i really feel that the fact that you could not get votes for this one, basically for the people that --
>> the people that do not think it was, it was not. >> well, look, i have a great fondness for all of you. i really do. >> i knew you did. >> you are nice people and i enjoyed talking with you, and most of you are southerners -- >> but you're going to hear the word "but" now -- >> i want you to take the advice in a manner it is given. i think you need a better advisor. i do not think the advisor you have got has done a good job. first, the government shut down and now this. just saying that for whatever you can do with that. >> chuck schumer and i are good friends. >> i think he would give you to a different kind of advice. i do not mean to knock the senator. i am sure he means well.
i just think that his record over here in the house is not that good, it appears to me. and one does wonder if the president of the united states might wonder if he might want to sue the house of representatives, what do you think? for malpractice? >> you know what? that might be a good question, but we are going to live up to it and do our job. >> we were ready to do our job today, but let's go. it is i do not want to hold this up. do you have anything to say? >> a couple things. one is i am reading the statement by the house gop leaders on this border bill, and i am a little confused. we began the week, when you guys decided to sue the president because he took executive action, and then you brought a border bill to the floor that
restricted the executive actions by the president, and it was not tough enough for some on your right wing, a toughened it up even more. you did not have the votes. you pulled the bill, and leadership issues a statement saying there were numerous steps that the president can and should be doing right now without the need for congressional action. i am wondering now, if we can get the president to take executive action, are you going to sue him again a second time? him him him >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will be happy to yield. >> this said the president should take action by himself? >> i just highlighted it. >> what? >> i appreciate the chairman saying that members of the republican conference are conferring with each other and talking to each other and having him conversations with each other. i want to make kind of a radical
suggestion here. maybe the republican leader should also confirm that the democratic caucus, because we have some ideas, too, and quite frankly i think we have ideas that i can guarantee you that if they were brought to the floor, if they were allowed to be voted on would pass. as far as the martial law thing here, it says here that the rules of the same date is waived with respect with any resolution through september 5, 2014, providing them measures relating to the humanitarian crisis on the border related to immigration law. which means anytime between now and then, any bill that has anything to do with this can be brought before the house of representatives.
we will not have the customary three days and be able to review the bill. i am not sure how much time we get for we are notified that a bill would be coming up, and assuming you do not bring up something tomorrow or saturday, some of us may go back to our district. at least you could bring something up within an hour's notice. >> i appreciate it. if we go to some reality task and apply what i would say is logic, the logic would tell you that we are going to bring this is piece of legislation that allows us to have a same-day rule. we have a piece of legislation. and so you would be notified, you would be given notice -- >> how much? >> are your members here or not here? >> if it is tomorrow, we are here. >> my logic of this, my logic is tomorrow afternoon, i assume, at
some point, if we have not made progress, the progress that i would want, we would all want, then i or somebody will engage in the in a colloquy, probably mr. hoyer, the minority whip, would ask the question on the floor, please tell us what we believe the schedule would be. and we would have an idea, do people go home, do people say here, and we would get an idea of that schedule, and then that schedule would tend to drive the behavior about when we believe a bill would be ready. now, you and i both know we would probably have to come him and him back, the rules committee would have to come back early, but we would make sure that we talk about mrs. slaughter and i would talk, my members and i would talk, and we
would come back, regular notice will be given. >> mr. chairman, are you saying that you want to be covered in case any action is not taken tomorrow? >> you know what i'm saying? >> you're saying that by tomorrow afternoon if we did not come to resolution on this -- >> i am not saying -- >> can you give us some idea of the parameters of the -- what you have in mind? is you have in mind? >> i would say that i would fully expect that it would be a new bill. >> a totally new bill? >> i did not say totally. >> if you want to do a new bill, i would think that you would want to consult with democrats so you could get to pass it. it would look good. of course, it would have to be and certainly different, for democrats to vote for it. but i am saying that the appropriations bill, we may have some other people out there, but i am hoping there would be a consultation. i love coming to talk to you about things. >> are we going to consult about things tomorrow? >> i expect so. >> and we would be doing a rule? >> we could.
>> we would like to express our concern over this process. as you what some of us have been concerned about is, as this process has devolved into adding more legislative things to an appropriations bill is that none of these legislative items have been the subject of hearings or markups or deliberations, and when you are talking about some of the actions that i heard enunciated yesterday that were not part of the regular appropriations process, but fall under the authorizing committees. i mean, i am not sure we all understand what the impacts of some of this stuff is going to be.
some of us are concerned if you are going to add new, i assume, tougher language, tougher on these kids, if you are going to add this language, i assumes that some of us would like to know they would like to talk to experts, talk to those who would be affected, those who know about how the border process works, how these cases are litigated than quite frankly any of us here know. i am not saying we did not know a lot, but i am saying is that is what you have hearings so you can learn what the applications are going to be. i'm concerned about major changes in the law that have not been fully vetted. and again, having said that, the more you move to the right on him this stuff, i think the less likely this process is going anywhere, but you may be a vote and him him on the house floor,
and that is it. >> i will tell you what i will do, what i will do is i will try to the best of viability make sure that there is a clear understanding that the implications of this, whatever it might be, that we are able to fully explain it, and i felt like the other day in the hearing that whether there were republicans or democrats here that they would get straightforward answers about the substance of what we were expected to understand. if there are additional changes or changes which i do not know right now exactly what they would be, i would guess, i would make sure that i have someone here come as we did the other day, who can answer all the questions that seem to wish to be asked. it is a him and i will have somebody here. >> i am just reading this right now. may i? i got to tell you, as i look at this, i've concerns i have right here, there are numerous steps the president should be taking right now without the need for congressional action, which flies in the face of reality that you have been telling us all along that he should not be
doing these things, to secure our borders and ensure these children are turned swiftly and safely to their countries. for the past month the houses been engaged in efforts to pass legislation compelling the president to do his job. the house has not. the majority has. we have not been consulted in any way on this. and through an inclusive process, and i do not know what that means. what is the inclusive process? the we were not included in any of that? >> with the gentlewoman mind if i saw that sheet of paper? >> not at all. i think it is pretty damning, inflammatory. the president of the united states, that you can get the votes to do anything here -- >> that is the speaker's website. >> i want that on the record
here that -- i am very much upset about that because there has been no inclusion. it mentions "inclusive process." no such thing. we are members. nobody listens to us. "a border bill that gets the support of the majority of the majority." the rest of us do not count. we got a million more votes in the last election for the democrats, on this side. and we really resent -- i think as much as anything else, i got a lot to resent here, being shut him out all the time. but this is really an insult. >> look -- >> you ought to be ashamed to him him him him him him him him him put that up there. >> accept my apologies for not seeing it before it went out. let me say this, it is much as this is concerned, what we want to do is come back, acknowledge that we are rethinking this, that we are going to read talk it over, that i will do my best when i see what the changes are going to be to not only, and
talk with you, but have any experts that are necessary to meet the standard of explaining the ramifications of what we are doing. >> we have gone through four years of this shutout. we know obviously on this committee, we understand it was the same thing when i was a chair. we do not have much to say, but between the two of us, 1.4 million citizens in our district who cannot express what they want on the floor, that is really pretty -- we do not like being left out and we like to be part of this, too. >> the same thing can be said about the united states senate with their numbers and what they are trying --
>> [indiscernible] like the highway bill. >> they come up with a border built in a bipartisan way. >> what i want to do is make sure -- i have always tried to run this committee fairly, i have always tried consult, we make sure that all the witnesses feel comfortable -- >> and you do. but it is absolutely insulting the, though, to read something like the speaker put out, "inclusive," "consultive." you have been humiliated enough that you would want to go home, so the people are watching pretty closely what is going on. >> what we want to do is pass a bill that represents the viewpoint of this body to where we can pass it with 218 votes. >> "a majority of the majority." >> there you go. >> i think you need a new senate
advisor. >> i failed to make that meeting. ok, any further discussion of the -- the chair will now be in receipt of emotion from mrs. foxx? >> i move the committee grant a rule, relating to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the u.s. southern border, border security, and related immigration law. it provides it shall be in order at any time to the legislative day of september 5, 2014, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules for measures leading to the ongoing crisis on the u.s. southern border, border security, and related immigration law.
>> we have heard the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. any discussion or amendment? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. those for the motion signify by saying aye. ayes have it. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye.
today's headlines and your called. the houses back in session at 10:00 eastern after having postponed the beginning of the august recess. in 45 minutes, our guest is author and columnist and schapiro who will discuss the health awesome -- house authorization for lawsuit against president obama and how both parties are using impeachment as a talking point. delegates eleanor holmes norton at the district of columbia to take your questions about the congressional agenda as members had to the august recess. by richard be joined gage, founder of the group architects and engineers for 9/11 troops. washington journalists nextjoinn facebook and on twitter. ♪ host: eric cantor resigning from congress august 18.
are calling for cia director john brennan's resignation. how's remaining in session for the border bill. this is the "washington journal ," our discussion is on the border bill. what do you think about the fact of the house is staying in session. republicans, democrats, independents -- (202) 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3882